On May 22, 2005, at 7:33 AM, Dave Turner wrote:

> I mean, storing the program in a data EEPROM, now that's just dumn.

At the time, it was very clever.  The basic stamp I is a 16C54, and came
out LONG before large program memories, EEPROM, or flash.  The basic 
stampII
uses a similarly primitive chip.  At the time, it was close to 
brilliant (IMO.)
At the time, you got to make the decision between the $39 stamp, and a 
$12 UV
erasable chip, plus a UV eraser, plus a parallel programmer of some 
kind (no
ICSP back then, either), and the state of compilers for PICs was dismal.
By the date it was possible to functionally replace a stamp with a 
flash chip,
jdm-style programmer and basic compiler, the stamp was well-established.


I'm a bit disappointed that parallax hasn't driven the cost down by 
using newer
chips; all of a basic stamp I should fit on something like a 16F88 
(including
the on-board eeprom, which should be faster (having parallel access.))  
On the
other hand, the fact that they haven't is part of the reason I'm led to 
believe
that their major "cost" these days is "support" rather than the HW 
itself.

BillW
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist